Opinion of internet atheists

[DC Al Fine]

I doubt BTRD has even read the Blind Watchmaker or the Selfish Gene which is also ironic given his love of memes...

BRTD probably still hasn't even finished reading the Bible (frankly I kind of doubt he ever will) and yet he's perfectly comfortable telling us about how great Jesus and God are. It comes at no surprise that he feels free to comment on other works he's never read.

I suspect the parts BRTD hasn't read are things like the minor prophets, 1 & 2 Chronicles etc. He should still read them, but it doesn't make him as unqualified to talk about the gospel as say not having read the gospels would be.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Know what? I think this bears repeating:

Though the nature of the missing of the point is quite instructive as to why this kind of discussion is so frequently lamentably unproductive in almost all possible respects.

Important bit highlighted.

And you, on the other hand, whose only contributions have been "but zyklon B! Ha! Gotcha!", and then endlessly repeating that we're all missing the point, have contributed a lot to make this discussion productive.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ah, but in what context did I mention zyklon-b and thalidomide? And what were the responses?

[afleitch]

Ah, but in what context did I mention zyklon-b and thalidomide? And what were the responses?

Al, usually even I get your usually cryptic interventions but I am struggling. Given that you've been asked about three times now perhaps it would be helpful if you just said

[Insula Dei]

This thread still going? Makes me question me being on an internet message board.

[John Dibble]

I doubt BTRD has even read the Blind Watchmaker or the Selfish Gene which is also ironic given his love of memes...

BRTD probably still hasn't even finished reading the Bible (frankly I kind of doubt he ever will) and yet he's perfectly comfortable telling us about how great Jesus and God are. It comes at no surprise that he feels free to comment on other works he's never read.

I suspect the parts BRTD hasn't read are things like the minor prophets, 1 & 2 Chronicles etc. He should still read them, but it doesn't make him as unqualified to talk about the gospel as say not having read the gospels would be.

I doubt he's read most of the Old Testament either. From what I understand his readings are limited pretty much entirely to what his rather liberal church has in their Bible study sessions, which I imagine doesn't include much of the OT.

[The Mikado]

The problem, again, is the treatment of the advancement of "knowledge" qua knowledge as an inherent good that doesn't need to be justified or rationalized when the pursuit of said knowledge is hardly disinterested and is quite often directly motivated by the inclination to murder, maim, torment, and subjugate humanity.  Foucault lays out very clearly in The Birth of the Clinic how the scientific community engages in an effort to lay claim to specialized knowledge in order to aggregate its own power and sideline its competitors (in the case of The Birth of the Clinic, that would be every variety of alternate medical provider, but in a larger context we can include alchemists, astrologers, clerics, and others who formerly had a claim on specialty knowledge).  This pursuit of information about how the human body works aids efforts to monitor people straight to their biometrics and genetic sequences: it will not be long until your insurance provider or medical provider has access to  your most intimate genetic details.  This quest for knowledge also puts the more and more dangerous tools in the hands of states, both weapons of war and the information network that accompanies it.  The satellites above our heads allow for 24/7 surveillance to a degree unimaginable 25 years ago, the drones through our skies allow for quick removal of those distasteful to authority, the medical technology allows for vials of virulent pathogens like smallpox once removed from the human experience, weaponized and ready for a second round of fatality.

There's little to no effort to recognize, let alone defend, how the scientific community's best friends are military researchers and developers.  The presentation of the idealistic quest to expand the human frontiers of knowledge covers a cynical desire to gather information for the purpose of allowing easier subjugation, control, and slaughter of human beings, and in fact said slaughter are often referred to as part of an earlier era, unfit for our enlightened modern times.  This convenient attitude slanders our ancestors by unjustly accusing people  the Medieval or Antiquity periods of crimes they didn't commit and conveniently attempts to whitewash how scientific learning and knowledge have made the modern era more horrific and inhumanly, grotesquely brutal than those that preceded it, through notions derived from the scientists of an era not too distant of racial inequality, sterilization, and the inhumanity of one's fellow humans, not to mention justifications for the inherent inferiority of women.  Thinking that the scientists of today are somehow more enlightened and disinterested than the politically-motivated scientists of a hundred years ago and their justifications for racism and sexism is naive in the extreme.

[TJ in Oregon]

I think you're reading a bit much into the intentions of most scientists here, Mikado. Very few have any desire for subjugation and control or even spend much time worrying about the application their work is geared to. Virtually every scientist is simply grateful for a source of funding to carry out work in a field they understand whether it comes from the army or a pharmaceutical company. For instance, I'm in alternative energy field, not because I think I'm going to save the world from hydrocarbon dispair (Like most research projects, the odds of it turning into a product that revolutionizes energy is quite slim. It'd be great if I did though ), but because it was an interesting project that intersected a few general areas that I have experience in. Granted, an extreme pacifist is unlikely to take a military project and I'm unlike to start doing embryonic stem cell research, but for the most part there isn't an agenda. Science today is more about a certain type of problem solving than it is about what happens to society if the problem is solved. Obviously, a blatantly horrible project idea might not be received well, but scientific ethical questions tend to be far more focused on the means than the ends.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

If I understand his thinking correctly, Mikado probably knows this, and probably considers it part of the problem.

[Sbane]

Thanks for bringing up genetic testing, Mikado. That is a perfect example of how science can be used for both good and bad. Genetic testing can be used to target drug therapy in different people and I am very glad it is happening. On the other hand, if it is used by insurance companies to jack up your rates or deny you coverage, it is a misapplication of that technology. Perhaps you feel that it will inevitably happen. That, my friend, is an indictment of humanity, not science. Perhaps you feel new scientific application are used more for bad than good, but that again is an indictment of human beings.

[afleitch]

Thanks for bringing up genetic testing, Mikado. That is a perfect example of how science can be used for both good and bad. Genetic testing can be used to target drug therapy in different people and I am very glad it is happening. On the other hand, if it is used by insurance companies to jack up your rates or deny you coverage, it is a misapplication of that technology. Perhaps you feel that it will inevitably happen. That, my friend, is an indictment of humanity, not science. Perhaps you feel new scientific application are used more for bad than good, but that again is an indictment of human beings.

That’s exactly it. Indeed it’s the end product of the thought processes of philosophies/humanities, politics and ethics that drive the application of science for good or for ill. If Mikado’s ‘beef’ is with the misapplication of science, then his beef should be with the very arts and philosophies he’s been trying to uphold as more virtuous, as they lead to individual and collective conscious decisions as to how to apply knowledge (and not all knowledge is scientific). They lead to people using pesticides to kill and maim millions, but they also lead to people using pesticides to alleviate famine. People might have used the mathematical sciences to work out the trajectory of a trebuchet to flatten a town six hundred years ago, but they also applied it to discover the use of perspective in art to create breathtaking landscapes. Even thalidomide is still used today assist cancer victims and sufferers of HIV. If all humans had were rocks and sticks we’d still be divided into people who use them for hunting or for war.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I like them if they are amusing and witty, like opebo. Most are just annoying bores.

[k-onmmunist]

indifferent, but i'll vote ffs because the people who bang on about them are really irritating.